Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:38 +0300 | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Subject | Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard! |
| |
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0000, Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > > Yes, it could be done. If inotify will not be killed itself, will be > > enabled in the config and daemon will be started. > > But right now there is no way to solve that task, in the long term this > > is a good idea to implement modulo security problems it may concern. > > It is perfectly soluble right now, use the existing /proc interface. If > you want to specifically victimise new tasks first then set everything > else with an adjust *against* being killed and new stuff will start off > as cannon fodder until classified. > > The name approach is the wrong way to handle this. It has no reflection > of heirarchy of process, targetting by users, containers etc.. > > In fact containers are probably the right way to do it
Containers to solve oom-killer selection problem? :)
Being more serious, I agree that having a simple name does not solve the problem if observed from any angle, but it is not the main goal. Patch solves oom-killer selection issue from likely the most commonly used case: when you know who should be checked and killed first when problem appears.
-- Evgeniy Polyakov
| |